One of the common injustices today, seen across the world is that prevailing in the criminal justice systems of nations. While the call for a ban on the death sentence is being heard and nations make an effort to move away from it, they are unfortunately replacing it with life imprisonment without parole (LWOP). Ironically this is an equal, if not a harsher punishment to the death penalty.
On the face of it, the deliberation procedures, sentencing guidelines, opportunities for appeal and pardon that are so evident in death sentence is seen to be lacking in LWOP. From zero investigations, evidence manipulations, misinterpretation of law and arbitrary sentencing, the judiciary particularly in developing and under developed countries is too pathetic.
A mandatory irreducible life sentence is often handed down because it is the only alternative to the death penalty or, it is the only one available for the crime in question. In both these cases the LWOP is not obtained through a reasoned deliberation; it just seem to be the logical course.
The LWOP is applied uniformly for all the cases, not considering the grounds for differential treatment. The mandatory LWOP penalty lacks the mercy system that is available for the capital punishment. The modern criminal justice system lacks the time, infrastructure, and finance to ensure fair justice, thus bringing in the risk of abuse. The prosecutors retain the plenary powers to add or subtract legally cognizable charges. The prosecutors control the prospects of whether defendants face a mandatory-minimum charge. Similarly, there is also no mandate requiring the prosecutor to seek a mandatory penalty.
The European Union (EU) has indeed been a model when it comes to respecting human rights, particularly among the prisoner population. The EU has shown the direction for forward movement in criminal justice delivery.
The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) through its Article 5(4) insists that there must be regular judicial review to ascertain the need for continued detention for discretionary life sentences and for life imprisonment. Further with regard to life sentencing the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has emphasized that all irreducible life sentences must have a prospect for the offenders to apply for a conditional release. Similarly offenders can be extradited to another country only when there is a prospect for release. Resentment against lengthy irreducible prison sentences is evident in the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which instructed prison regimes to ensure all imprisoned individuals have a prospect of release.
There is no doubt that this irreducible life imprisonment would decline. There is hardly any benefit for the society in holding on to LWOP. The idea behind punishment should be to reform individual or restrain him from such behavior.
When offenders age in prison and are incapable of committing the crime again, why do we need to retain them in prison?. The prison population in many countries like the US is burgeoning, putting enormous demands for increased funding. Nations simply cannot hold on to such punishments like the LWOP.
LWOP does more harm to the society than good. When prisoners are isolated from families for very long periods of time, they get depressed and are very likely to be mentally affected. Lack of social bonding impairs the cognitive ability and the offenders find it almost impossible to adapt to society even when released.
The offender’s family including his children suffers enormously, in his long time absence from the family. There are several unwanted effects on the prisoners which are actually not a part of the punishment. It must be stated here that prolonged isolation can even hamper rehabilitation efforts.
Sentencing in human civilization has come a long way from the days of anarchy and barbarous sentencing, through exhaustive deliberations. The punishment of irreducible life imprisonments is incompatible with the present liberal thinking.
Despite research indicating that LWOP is ineffective as a deterrent, but very effective when a possibility of release is included, many nations don’t take this. Criminal justice systems of nations having irreducible life imprisonments should reconsider the pros and cons associated with this punishment and initiate reforms. Irreducible life imprisonments do not withstand the challenges posed by human right principles and thus need to be reconsidered. These punishments can no longer be considered compatible to societal interests.
